Those are the fateful words Republicans have been trying to hang around former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's neck since she first uttered them at a January congressional hearing. But it is also the question facing the Benghazi investigation itself.

Can the inquiry into the attacks on the US consulate in Libya yield meaningful new information? Can it unearth facts that reveal the Obama administration to have been mendacious, incompetent or just understandably confused amidst the fog of war? And will the public care?

Gregory Hicks testified that everyone knew early on that the consulate had been the target of a terrorist attack, not a protest over an anti-Muslim YouTube video. He said that when he objected to the official talking points, administration praise turned into an effective demotion. Hicks added that Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills forbade him from talking to a Republican investigator, in a somewhat intimidating fashion.

Whistleblowers claimed that a US armed force in Tripoli was twice instructed not to deploy to Benghazi. They told Congress they did not know who gave the "stand down" orders or the reasoning behind the decision.

After the attack, the wounded ambassador was taken to a hospital controlled by the Islamists responsible. Hicks testified that Americans didn't go get him because they were being set up. "We suspected we were being baited into a trap and so we did not want to go send our people into an ambush," he said

"If the testimony did not fundamentally challenge the facts and timeline of the Benghazi attack and the administration's response to it, it vividly illustrated the anxiety of top State Department officials about how the events would be publicly portrayed."

Some might go further and say that the hearings raised serious questions about both the security situation in Benghazi and the veracity of the administration's initial public account. Hicks called Ambassador Susan Rice's early explanations "stunning" and "embarrassing".

Did the White House want to avoid any perception that a terrorist attack, launched on the anniversary of 9/11, was mishandled as President Obama was running for reelection? Was there too light a military footprint because the earlier campaign for regime change in Libya was sold to the American people as requiring no boots on the ground? Who even knew what, when?

Republicans have raised similar questions with mixed results since the incident. GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney assailed Obama's response to the Benghazi assault during a debate. The exchange was so widely viewed as disastrous for Romney that the White House still cites it when pushing back against Republican critics.

The main target of the investigation at this point isn't Obama but Clinton, the presumptive favorite for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. The findings could have an impact both on her legacy and her reputation for being able to field that 3am phone call featured prominently in a 2008 Clinton campaign ad.

But the more Benghazi looks like an anti-Clinton fishing expedition, the less likely the inquiry is to permeate the consciousness of the ideologically uncommitted.

Terrorism happens. No serious person is hammering the Obama administration over the Boston Marathon bombings, which happened on US soil. No government can be omnipotent in protecting the public from harm, much less diplomats stationed in dangerous areas of the world.

But political leaders can be as transparent as national security will allow about their responses to such assaults. In this case, the obvious inadequacy of the security and the appearance of a cover-up warrant further investigation – as does the country's duty to four dead Americans.

Disciplined Republican questioning and critical witness testimony returned Benghazi to the headlines. But the broader questions remain: Who was giving the orders regarding security? What did the president know and when did he know it? And how about the ex-secretary of state, who may want to be our next president?